Challenging the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer cum Additional Executive Magistrate, Ramanathapuram dated 11.03.2010, made in Revision Na.Ka.P5/68468/2006, the petitioners have come forward with this writ petition.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7 to 9.
3.According to the petitioner, the land of an extent of 14 acres and 51 cents out of 27 Acres in S.Nos.146/1 and 148/1, Karan Group, Ramanathapuram Taluk was purchased by one Subramanian on 19.01.1996 and the said Subramanian's wife purchased 1 acre 12 cents in S.No.146/2 on 09.12.1996. All these lands were divided into 250 plots and were sold to various individuals and various sub-divisions have been effected and individual pattas have been issued. Some of them have also put up construction. The petitioners are some of the purchasers of the said plots. While so, the fourth respondent, Ganesan had filed an application before the second respondent claiming title to an extent of about 11 Acres in S.Nos.146 and 148. In the said proceedings he had impleaded four persons, who are totally unconnected with the said land. The second respondent by his order dated 07.09.2006, had allowed the application made by the fourth respondent, who is now dead, stating that the respondents therein have not filed any counter statement. By the said order, the second respondent has directed restoration of the patta in the name of the said Ganesan, namely, the fourth respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had filed appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram setting out the entire facts. In the meanwhile the said Ganesan, namely, the 4th respondent has also filed a suit in O.S.No.53 of 2007 on the file of District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram, claiming title to the extent of 11 Acres 70 cents in S.Nos.146 and 148 of Karan Group and the said suit had been dismissed on 08.08.2008 after contest. The District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram, namely, the first respondent by order dated 11.03.2010, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner stating that since they are not parties before the original authority, namely, the second respondent, they cannot file a revision or appeal against the said order dated 17.07.2006, made by the second respondent. Aggrieved by the said rejection the petitioners are before this Court by way of this writ petition.
4.I have heard Mr.V.Sitharanjandas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.S.Kumar, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, Mr.V.Nagarajan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 and Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7 to 9, who are the legal representatives of the deceased fourth respondent.
5.The order of the second respondent dated 17.07.2006, reflects the total non-application of mind on his part. By the time, he disposed of the pending application made by the 4th respondent Ganesan, the revenue registry has undergone several changes and patta had been issued in favour of various individuals in respect of the property in question. The second respondent has simply stated that the respondents therein, namely, the persons who are unconnected with the land, have not filed their objection and hence he has allowed application filed by the fourth respondent. The appeal filed by the petitioners were rejected by the first respondent solely on the ground that they are not parties to the original proceedings before the second respondent. This is wholly unjust and improper. Once the revenue registry has undergone changes and pattas have been issued by the department to various persons, it is the duty of the revenue officials, who are discharging the statutory function of grant of patta, to see that the persons in whose name patta stands and the persons who would be affected by the mutation are heard before effecting the same. Merely because the fourth respondent chooses to implead the strangers and those strangers failed to appear, the authorities should not have been accepted the claim of the fourth respondent, even without proper enquiry.
6.The first respondent being a revisional authority should not have mechanically rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. He should have conducted an enquiry and attempted to rectify the wrong committed by the second respondent. Unfortunately, the first respondent has failed in his duty as revisional authority. Be that as it may, now that the suit filed by the fourth respondent, seeking declaration of title to the suit property has been dismissed. Hence, I have no hesitation in setting aside the orders of the first respondent dated 11.03.2010 as well as the order of the second respondent dated 17.07.2006.
7.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order of the first respondent dated 11.03.2010 as well as the order of the second respondent dated 17.07.2006 are set aside. It is open to the legal representatives of the fourth respondent to approach the authority, if they still consider they have any right over the property and place relevant materials before the authority, who can decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after issuing notice to all the persons in whose name patta has been issued pursuant to the sale made to Subramanian and his wife.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
To
1.The District Revenue Officer cum Additional Executive Magistrate, Collectorate Complex, Ramanathapuram.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Collectorate Complex, Ramanathapuram.
3.The Tahsildar, Collectorate Complex, Ramanathapuram..